E 
30Z 



X,<\ 





Vfe^ 



n 



THE 



Reed Controversy. 



' ' ,' , -r~W 






■ . 






"--.^-^'''- ' V- ~— ' 


iisfl 


^^Sw^H^ra^H^K 


: 


«a 


^; %i^r ^ : | fegy ^ j 


! &ft& 


J^^^l /J^v, i K ; I 


mm 


^^^^ 


LU 


t^Si^^S 


E8? 


; > \ 


\va ^ iI^a^ 





Qass_ £-30 ?* 
Book„ 



7?3^ 



THE 



REED CONTROVERSY. 



FURTHER FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE 
CHARACTER OF 

Joseph Reed, 

ADJUTANT GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF GENERAL 
WASHINGTON. 





<iiG£: 









,-■-'** -' : 



(PRINTED FOR PRIVATE DISTRIBUTION.) 



TRENTON, N. J.: 

|OHN L. MURPHY, STATE f.AZETTE PRINTING HOUSE. 
1876. 



a? 



»-, H 



HTcdS- 



Wi «- **. 



■ !;, @,'HE first attack made on the military record of Joseph 
bSSfl Reed, Adjutant General on the Staff of General Washing- 
ton in the Revolutionary War, was an article addressed 
to the ''Independent Gazetteer," September 3d, 1782. It was 
signed " Brutus," and has generally supposed to have been writ- 
ten by Dr. Benjamin Rush. General Reed, however, thought 
his former comrade, General John Cadwalader, was the author, 
and he addressed a communication to him, dated November 1st, 
1782, to show the falsity of the innuendos concerning himself. 
A reply was made by General Cadwalader early in the year 1 7S3. 
In May, 1S47, the life and correspondence of Joseph Reed by 
his grandson William B. Reed, was published, which presented 
the character of General Reed in the most exalted light. In 
the year 1856, the attacks upon General Reed were renewed in 
a pamphlet entitled "Nuts for future Historians to crack," by 
Horace W. Smith. This document contained a re-print of Gen- 
eral Cadwalader's reply to General Reed with the addition of 
certain anonymous papers, first published in the "Evening Jour- 
nal," in September and October, 1842, and commonly called 
the " Valley Forge Letters." In the year 1866, the Hon. 
George Bancroft published the Ninth Volume of his History 



4 THE REED CONTROVERSY 

of the United States of America, which contains much new mat- 
ter relating to this subject, and re-opened the controversy. In 
February, 1867, Mr. William 15. Reed replied thereto in a pam- 
phlet entitled " President Reed, of Pennsylvania, a reply to 
George Bancroft and others." This was followed in the same 
year by Mr. Bancroft, with "Joseph Reed, a Historical Essay." 
A rejoinder by Mr. Reed the following year, closed the discus- 
sion. 

The correspondence herein contained, gives some further facts 
in the Reed controversy, and can hardly fail to attract the atten- 
tion of antiquarians searching for facts which have remained 
concealed a hundred years. 




STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ") 

Office of Adjutant General, , v 

TRENTON, January 26th, 1876. J 

Dr. George If Moore, New York Historical Society, New York 

City : 
My Dear Sir : 

As a searcher after historical truth. I desire to present you 
with some facts which I have lately discovered in reference to 
one of the charges made against Colonel Joseph Reed, Adjutant 
General to General Washington, that he took protection from 
the enemy during the Revolutionary War. 

The data which I shall give you were not ascertained until my 
work " Jerseymen in the Revolutionary War," was in print, 
and therefore the final record of the officer I shall refer to does 
not appear therein. 

In Mr. Bancroft's " History of the United States," 9th vol., 
page 229, we find in the original text, as a foot-note, an extract 
from the diary of Colonel Donop, the Hessian commander of 
the advance guard of the British Army, dated December 21st, 
1776. 

Again, in the pamphlet, "Joseph Reed a Historical Essay 
by George Bancroft," page 27, the same passage is repeated, 
with translation added : 

" Der Oberst Reed, der neulich eine Protection erhalten, 
seye dem General Mifflin entgegen gekommen, und habe dem- 
selben declarirt, dass er nicht gesonnen sey weiteres zu dienen, 
worauf ihm Mifflin sehr hart begegnete und ihm sogar einen dem 
Rascal geheissen habe." 

"Colonel Reed, who lately received a Protection, is said to 
have gone up to General Mifflin and declared to him that he 
was not disposed to serve any longer, upon which Mifflin met 
him very harshly, and even called him a damned rascal." 



(, THE REED CONTROVERSY. 

Allow me to call your attention to the record of a certain 
Colonel Read, of New Jersey. 

On the 27th day of November, 1776, in compliance with 
Washington's request, conveyed to Governor Livingston by 
Adjutant General Reed, the Legislature of this State passed an 
act to organize State Troops, by embodying, as occasion 
required, a certain quota of volunteers from the militia of the 
different counties. 

The law contemplated the raising of four battalions, on 
account of " the present situation of publick affairs, and partic- 
ularly the invasion of the State by the enemy." These bat- 
talions were to be " immediately got in readiness and marched 
tn join the army under the command of His Excellency General 
Washington." They were to continue in service until the 1st 
day of April, 1777. ( >ne of the battalions to be formed was to 
consist of three companies from the county of Middlesex, two 
companies from the county of Monmouth, and three companies 
from the county of Burlington. For this battalion Charles 
Read, the Colonel of the Second Battalion of Burlington 
Militia, was detailed as Colonel to command. 

The records of this office show that Charles Read was in com- 
mission as Colonel, and Thomas Seabrook, of First Battalion, 
Monmouth Militia, as Lieutenant Colonel of said Battalion of 
State Troops, and it does not appear that the battalion ever did 
any service under these officers, for Lieutenant Colonel Sea- 
brook "refused taking the oaths to the State," and Colonel 
Read took protection from the enemy. 

During the " Confusion of the Times," the Legislature 
adjourned December 2d, 1776, from Burlington to Trenton. 
But on the 22(1 of January. 1777, they met in Pittston, and on 
the 29th we find them in session at Haddonfield, sixteen miles 
from Mount Holly. During the month of February the Legis- 
lature was busily employed in organizing the Second Establish- 
ment, Continental Line. These matters undoubtedly delayed 
the reorganization of the Militia and State Troops, and the con- 



THE REED CONTROVERSY. 7 

duct of Colonel Read did not become officially public. But on 
the 15th day of March, 1777, Governor Livingston, in special 
message, reported : 

" Colonel Charles Read, of one of the Burlington Battalions, 
is in such a situation with Respect to his having submitted to 
the Enemy, that it is not probable he will act any longer in that 
office." 

I take it for granted that Colonel Donop thought the force 
in front of him was commanded by General Mifflin, who cer- 
tainly was on his way to Lancaster, Perm., at that time, and 
that he referred to a conversation held by a Colonel Reed with 
Colonel Samuel Griffin, a name sounding not unlike Mifflin, 
who was at that time doing all in his power to harass the 
British troops. 

Without entering into the discussion as to the whereabouts of 
Colonel Joseph Reed between the 14th of December, when the 
Hessian advance entered the Black Horse, and the 21st of 
December, when the entry was made in the diary, it certainly 
does appear to me that he could not have taken protection 
during that time, have had this interview with the commander 
of the American troops opposing the Hessian column, been 
entrusted by letter of Washington, dated December 23d, with 
the secret of the intended surprise at Trenton, and then fail to 
communicate the same to Donop, only six miles away. 

I ask your candid opinion, is it not altogether probable that 
Colonel Charles Read, who had large landed interests in Bur- 
lington county, while on his way from Mount Holly to his home 
in the southern part of the county, might have been the Read 
who, having " lately received protection," told Griffin " that 
he was not disposed to serve any longer." 

I am, very truly, yours, 

William S. Stryker, 
Adjutant General of New Jersey. 



8 THE REED CONTROVERSY. 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 
Office of Adjutant Generai , 

TRENTON, February 9th, 1S76. 

Dr. Georgt H. Moore, New York Historical Society, New York 
City : 

My Dear Sir : 

I desire to add another fact bearing on the subject concerning 
which I addressed yon in my letter of January 26th. 

Since writing you I have seen an extract from the official 
report of Colonel Donop, from his headquarters at Bordentoun, 
to Major-General Grant at New Brunswick. The passage I 
quote is of the same date, December 21st, 1776, as the entry in 
his diary before alluded to. 

" Ce qui est bien sur, c'est que le meme pres midi Gen. Mifflin 
est avance avec un corps Rebelle sur la route de Moorstown, 
jusqu'au Pont de trois miles eloignees de Mont-holly, mais qu'il 
n'a rien enterpris que de miner entierement ce pont apres qu'il 
est retourne a Moorstown. Le Col. Reed, qui dernierement a 
' recu une protection a rencontre le Gen. Mifflin, aupres de ce 
Pont, et lui a declare qu'il avoit quitte le parti Rebelle, sur quoi 
Mifflin l'a traite tres durement, le nommant a dam Raskel, et 
aparamment il l'a emmene comme prisonnier avec lui, puisque 
depuis on ne l'a plus vu a Blai khorse." 

While Donop's diary is in German, his report to his British 
commanding officer is in French, and French of a very indiffer- 
ent quality. However, the meaning is clear, that General Miff- 
lin (referring to Colonel Gsiffin,) had advanced his rebel corps 10 
the bridge on the Moorestown road three miles from Mount 
Holly. That Colonel Reed had met him near this bridge and 
had the conversation before referred to. and that Mifflin had as 
it appeared taken him off as a prisoner, as he had not since been 
een ■ Black Horse. 

1 desire to call your attention to the fact that the bridge 
ken oi here, is on the road which Colonel Charles Read, of 



THE REED CONTROVERSY. rj 

the Burlington Militia, would have taken whenever he travelled 
between Mount Holly and his home. 

It is apparent also, that Colonel Griffin did carry off Colonel 
Charles Read as Colonel Donop reported. In the Memorandum 
Book of the Council of Safety, of Pennsylvania, which may be 
found in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, at 
Harrisburg, we find just one month later Colonel Read of New 
Jersey in Philadelphia, and in the custody of Colonel Richard 
Humpton, then commanding nth Pennsylvania Regiment, 
Continental Line. 

The following is the extract : 

"January 21st, 1777. — The following Prisoners, taken in New 
Jersey, were sent by Col. Humpton to the Council. 

Col. Charles Reed, discharged on giving his word not to quit 
Phil., without leave." 

This memorandum is noted in Pennsylvania Archives, Second 
Series, Vol. I, Page 496. 

I think this is additional proof that Donop refers in his diary 
and in his report of the same date, to Colonel Read, 2d Bur- 
lington Battalion, New Jersey Militia, who received a Protec- 
tion, was taken prisoner and then gave his parole, and not to 
Colonel Reed, the Adjutant General of the Army. 
I am yours, very sincerely, 

William S. Stryker, 
Adjutant General of New Jersey. 



Washington, D. C, 1,623 H St., | 

February 10, 1876. ) 

My Dear Sir : 

My friend, Mr. Moore, has allowed me to read the letter 
which you addressed to him on the 26th January last. 

I have immediately perceived the bearing of your discoveries 
and have profited by them. 



I0 THE REED CONTROVERSY 

May I ask of you the favor to permit me to be the first to 
announce them to the public? If you will do so, you may be 
sure that I shall give all the honor to you, to whom is due the 
clearing up of what before was indistinct and perplexing. 
I remain, my dear General, 

Very sincerely your obliged, 

Geo. Bancroft. 
Adjutant Genoa I II'. S. Stryker. 



STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 

< ii i H f. in-- Adjutant General, 
TRENTON, February 15th, 1876. 
My Dear Sir : 

Your kind favor of the 10th was received to-day. I am 
pleased that my communication of January 26th to Mr. Moore 
was sent you by him, and am gratified to find, as I infer from 
your note, that you agree with me as to the bearing of my dis- 
coveries. 

I do not propose to give further publicity to the result of my 
investigations, but should you deem them of sufficient import- 
ance to be more widely made known, I shall feel highly gratified 
to have them reach the public through so illustrious a channel. 
I have the honor 10 lie yours, very truly, 

William S. Stryker, 
Adjutant General of New Jei sey. 
It, m. George Bancroft, Washington, D. C. 



In the Centenary edition of Bancroft's History of the United 
State-,, Vol. V, Chap. xiii. page 479, the following note appears 



THE A 1 /-:/:/' CONTROVERSY. ,, 

in reference to the entry of December 21st, 1776, in Donop's 
official- report to General Grant : 

" From discoveries recently made in the New Jersey archives 
by Adjutant General William S. Stryker, I think there can be 
no doubt that the Colonel Reed referred to in this passage, and 
in the corresponding words of the Donop German diary, was 
Colonel Charles Read of New Jersey, who is known to have 
'submitted to the enemy.' " 




~ BRA RY OF CONGRESS 



II II 






011 839 095 



33rtf! 



7 « 



^h 



'>■ « — / « 






v- -< 



: Ce 



. '. \ 




; S v \ d^S 



<*iyx 



iMkl**&y. 



